This is what I've been waiting for. I have long found triples awkward and redundant and yet even compact doubles seemed a bit steep for normal, non-racing use. And it doesn't hurt that it's one of the most beautiful cranks I've ever seen.

WOW, it took me awhile to read the post because I was just staring at the picture. I would love a single 1/8th version on my track bike, it's current crank looks totally out of place. Actually I want this crank on any bike I would own.

I was okay with every single crank being ugly since that's all that was around, this changes everything.

Every part is designed be interchangeable with Cyclotouriste cranks, rings bolts, etc. But, to be honest, I've not actually mounted the VO rings on a TA crank and ridden it yet. Still need to test various combinations.

We will sell the rings and bolts separately as well.

BB length is 116mm on a racing/rando frame, probably longer on a MTB or Camper.

More rings and triple and dedicated single versions are planned for fall 2010.

The crank looks spectacular, but a Q that narrow plays havoc with my knee and IT band. Wish you'd also make a crank that light and beautiful, with the same gearing options, but with a Q closer to the standard Sugino XD (ie, 165-170mm).

Wow. At that weight you're nearly as light as the octalink version of the sugino cospea (I've always been tempted by that but am not dying to buy an octalink crank in 2010!) I love that this is square taper, beautiful, and lighter than the FSA compact doubles / external BBs that come stock on many modern cross bikes. Who says you can't be stylish, a little retro, and shave a few grams at the same time!? -Tim

I like these. I bemoan the fact that nobody seems to want to offer cranks in the 172.5. I feel like these are suitable for such a wider range of riders. I understand the cost thing of making/stocking more sizes, but my feeling is you'd sell a lot more 172s than 165s. Oh well.

+1 on the pedal adapter. Since virtually every other modern crank is wide Q, Chris chose right by sticking with the narrow Q to offer something fairly unique to the market. The TA crank was/is nice, but too expensive and incompatible with modern standards hardware and threading standards...

Echoing most people feelings here - great job. I'll be spreading the word before and after I get my hands on a set in a smaller chainring combo for my crazy chainring combo (27 or 28 or 29 with 40 or 41 or 42) for my Rawland Drakkar that is coming "in a few months" :)

I can only hope that a lower q-factor than my current Ultegra cranks and my heel rub on the cranks because of bowed legs will help with knee issues i've been having.

I agree with Dustin, this crank already exists (TA), while a wide Q version does not. I tried the spindle extenders (Knee Savers) and found them to be too wide, the narrowest adds 40mm! I finally gave up and just went back to a triple (hangs head in shame).

Looks awesome and 46/30 is my favorite combination, but I doubt I'll buy unless you make a 172.5mm model. It's hard to believe 2.5mm matters, but it does!170 doesn't feel right at all, 175 is OK, but 172.5 is the sweet spot for me. Plus I've got a stash of 175 Sugino PX cranks already.Still, awesome looking cranks. Good Job!

Awesome. I love the 46/30, I love the low-Q, allen bolts, common threading, etc. 172.5 is the sweet spot for me too, but probably won't preclude me buying a set of these(just a note for second production runs).

Is each length its own forging, not just drilling the pedal hole in a different spot? Looks like it from the picture, awesome! Also, the flutes on the outer ring are a nice touch.

Well, a typical old-style racing frame has a 112 mm asymmetric bottom bracket, or a 115 symmetric bottom bracket. Is there anything you can do to make this crank stick 1 mm further outboard, so that I can just dump my old campagnolo junk and bolt this thing onto my campy compatible (NOS 112 or new 115) bottom bracket ?? That would be the pièce de résistance.

Regarding other sizes, since they would sell in much smaller quantities they would be much more expensive to justify tooling costs. Maybe $120 more? Could we sell 500 180mm cranks a year? Not a chance.

Also, no one I know can ride a bike and tell me if a crank is 170mm or 172.5 without looking, no one. I've heard guys who fit bikes for top level racers say that only a very very few of those experienced racers can spot a difference of 2.5mm. This issue is related to what researchers call the "nocebo effect". If you know a crank is 2.5mm shorter you just think it must not feel as good.

These are modern JIS, not ISO, taper cranks, so if you have an old Campy or TA BB it would be best to replace it.

Wait a few days and you'll see a new crank with a wider Q-factor and 46/30 rings that will cost $100.

Can't wait for the Single ring crank! Particularly with the possibility to run rings around 34t w/bashguard for narrow chainline fixed/sturmey archer setups, or outer position for wide chainline 8/9/14 speed gearhub setups...

It shouldn't cost that much more to make other sizes, you just drill the hole in a slightly different spot. Maybe you should make them undrilled like you used to do for fenders. Customers could then achieve the scientifically proven optimum crank length of 173.141593mm.(this is why 172.5 is so popular, it's gets as close to 17π as you can get in 2.5mm increments ;-)Seriously, 172.5 is a very popular size, certainly more than 165 which you offer. It would probably even sell better than 170.

I'll leave Chris to comment on whether this is true of this design, but those thinking of these for a single ring setup need to remember that generally speaking cranks with small center spiders like 50.4 need the support of a smaller ring to keep the large ring from getting stressed and bent by lateral forces. I've seen large single rings on small spiders fold before, even done it once myself on a steel ring, and it's not hard to see that human body weight + the roughly 2:1 advantage of a standard crank is going to put a hurting on a thin, tall chainring with no lateral support. This is less of a concern if you're riding gears and not going to have to stand on a tall gear at every start as with a singlespeed, but I'd be careful unbolting the small ring unless you don't weigh much and don't ride very hard.

I'm with Chris that anyone who thinks they can tell a 170 crank from a 172.5 is up a tree, but it seems like far more people are accustomed to this size than 170 -- for better or for worse 172.5 has been the standard on most road bikes from 54-61 for the last decade or so. Maybe a more sensible size run would be 165, 172.5, 180. The 180 tooling might not pay for itself per se, but if you're budgeting for 3 sets of tooling you're probably satisfying more picky constituencies that way, while the rest of us who would have bought at 170 will just buy the 172.5 anyway, and the 165 remains for smaller riders and people who have their reasons for wanting a shorter crank. Probably too late now, but something to think about.

I understand your point about one's ability to notice a difference of 2.5 mm in crank length, but if you follow that logic, then making a 172.5 would replace both the 170 and 175. Not complaining though--the crank is beautiful.

Oh, and also, stick with the engraving. I can't think of anything less attractive than a foil sticker (well, maybe screen printed logos). Reminds me of an early 70's Gitane--not all that is French was good!

These cranks look perfect! I can't wait for the singles. Now all you need to do is provide me with an affordable 650b ss-fg rear wheel ;)seriously, great job! Nobody is doing things like this. You should be proud.

On the crank length issue: I cannot discern any significant difference between my TA 170mm crank and my Sugino PX 175mm crank. I agree with Chris that no one can tell the difference in 172.5mm cranks and 170mm.

Suggestion to Chris, I think you are very much right about the small difference being undetectable to most riders. However, the placebo effect is so tremendously strong, no 172.5 rider will be satisfied with anything else.

The solution? Lie to them. Just take a bunch of the 170s and re-label them. To be fair to the rest of us, next production run just make 172.5's and label them 170 and 175.

Could we see the chainring group from the inside? One thing that's always prevented me from getting my spindle as short as I'd like is TA's hex-head chainring screws, which threaten to buzzsaw through my driveside chainstay. A lower-profile screwhead (button-head, probably) might permit me to get down to a 122/123mm spindle on a triple.

Yes, some of us like triples.

And on the triple subject: What range of chainring sizes will be available? I use a half-step setup with a 6/7-speed freewheel, so inner wheels in the low-to-mid 40s and grannies 30T and under are lifesavers.

Most importantly, how tough are the chainring and bolt alloys? I'd love to cut down on the flex in the bigger wheels, and I've torn off a couple of screwheads on TA's flimsy screws recently. It would be nice to have a stock of screws that will take more punishment.

The allen head fasteners (nut and bolt) are stainless and you should be able to get an adequate torque range on them without rounding out the hex socket. They are commonly found threaded fasteners for easy replacement at most fastener houses, home depot, or a 3rd world hardware store.

We specifically used a thicker 7075 alloy for the chainrings to reduce flex and increase the strength on larger chainwheels. A wider chainring also supports the chain better.

172.5 yes, is a funny length, and I could most likely ride a 170 and be fine, but for the amount of miles that I ride, combined with the fit and position that I find comfortable for those miles, a 172.5 fits me best. The 160mm is a size that is lacking and used to be offered, and there are a number of people that could use a crank that size. Since VO is going through the trouble to remake this very versatile crank design, why limit the function and value by locking out other lengths for future runs? Why limit the products to the basic 3 sizes that are generalized to work for people? It seems that having this new iteration of the crank be as versatile as the old TA and Stronglight's would not only add value to the item, but to VO as well. But what do I know. It is not my money.

I like it, I will have to look at the gear chart to see how the gears play out, but the style is good, a bit extra fluting to differentiate it, better than the Electra one in detailing.

Now, my only nit is that the 50mm fasteners are not counterbored a bit into the ring, not knowing the limitations of space, that is my only nit. Even a partial counterbore would make the fasteners look designed in, not applied.

I'm very excited about this, especially that there will be a single ring version as well. It's looks wonderful, has all the features anybody could need in a crank, and it looks proper! I would love to see a Sugino 75 style bottom bracket produced for use with this crank, even though you've already got a good selection of bottom brackets to choose from. There's just something funny about using a Shimano cartridge type BB on a crank such as this!

Greg, The FSA and Shimano compact-specific front ders would work perfectly with these. Maybe not "classic" enough for some people but solid units with pretty good finish for $20-40. VO doesn't carry them but you can get them anywhere

Greg,I'm building up my chrome Voyageur 11.8 with a new wheelset from VO using an SRAM 850 11-28t cassette and (when available) will use this 46/30 crankset. I purchased an Ultegra FD-6603 (triple) and an RD-6600 (long cage). I shopped around and spent about $90 on both including the aftermarket clamp to fit the braze-on FD to my 28.6 tube.

Possibly other front derailleurs will work fine, but I purchased a triple to be safe. The Ultegra stuff shouldn't look too out of place alongside the vintage and VO parts. FYI, I use friction shifters.

Compelling. The devil is in the details. I can't tell if the grooves are cut or forged. Cut, like Campy Nuovo Record is probably cooler, visually. Forged, like Stronglight and TA are probably better structurally. The metal finish needs improving. I'd like to see 172.5 mm offered. The VO logo etching on the crank oval doesn't do it for me. The chainrings are nice. Made in USA, China, Taiwan or Japan? Kudos for the effort.

Are there going to be issues on some frames (specifically modern fat-tire-oriented ones made with current wide-Q norms in mind) with a longer-than-ideal spindle being needed to avoid crank/chainstay interference, thereby pushing the chainline out? It certainly seems like there are a good amount of such bikes out there with current road cranks that just barely clear with a safe margin for flex as it is.

Maybe when it comes time, you could publish some numbers for where the inside of the ends of the crankarms end up, so people can plan around this?

I'm running a TA on a 130mm-spaced bike with clearance for 45mm fenders. The spindle is 120mm, which gives a good chain line and safe (but close) clearance for the stays.

The problem with my setup is that the chain just grazes the end of the crankarm when I'm in my smallest cog (I'm using a 7-speed Suntour freewheel). It's a fixable problem, but it's something to keep in mind with a crank like this.

I really like this crank. It would be much better though, with a 92.7bcd, 3 arm of course, 187.6 length and hand polished mirror finish with double clear anodizing with gold inlayed graphics that are only visible to those 'in the know'.

If you can meet these completely ridiculous requests for under 150 dollars, I promise to buy one. Maybe.

Very cool, especially in a 175 length!Note to those that want all sorts of other lengths besides 165, 170, and 175: I sell lots of very nice cranksets, both vintage and current production ones. The vast majority are 170, 172.5, or 175. Occasionally a 165, but that's it. About three times per year per length I get a question about 177.5 or 180. 167.5 seems to be in a no-desire-whatsoever zone, and maybe one customer per year asks about 185s. I'm fairly sure it just wouldn't be feasible to do all sorts of lengths for a super-low volume specialty item like these cranksets....

So what's the deal with medium size people running these ridiculous long cranks anyway? When I started out, a guy my size (5'10", 30" inseam, ride 56 cm frame) ran 170 mm on road and 165 mm on track. When I tested a Surly Cross-Check it came in road configuration with 175s. It was so weird I almost didn't buy the frame. I suspect the additional knee excursion cannot be good for you, and it certainly has to make you tend toward pedaling squares. (I built up the Surly with Campy Super Record cranks at 170 mm.) I watch the newer riders bounce-butt down the road and I think, "Dude, you need some cranks sized to your leg length."

Seems like 165, 170, 175 would be the best choices. It would always be possible to make a run of some other length as long as there's enough meat in the forging to drill at a different length. 2.5 mm off center would, I think, be barely discernible.

Wow, I love the crank... I'm excited to put it on my 9-spd STI bike to bring the gearing into my range for long climbs. Switching out the 52-39 for 46-30 is the perfect solution and I love the the chainrings. Also, it looks great - an aesthetic equal to the Mavic Starfish I'll be replacing. Thanks Chris.

The VO cranks are not the same as the Electra cranks. We have our own molds and they are made in a different factory. There are many refinements in the VO cranks. If you compare the quality and details side-by-side many differences will be obvious. The Electra cranks were made for their beach cruiser-style bikes; VO's were made for serious long distance cyclists.

Thanks Chris for the clarification!I'd be sure to order a set and some rings for the Nervar set I scored on 'bay awhile back. My biggest worry is that you'll be all out by the time I get around to!Keep 'em coming! / Pete

For the couple of folks looking for a single version of this ring - if looks are the big deal, IRD just came out with a similar styled crankset for fixed/ss setups:

http://www.interlocracing.com/cranks.html

Soma carries it online.

Personally, I'll wait for a single version of this from VO, as the track-style 144 BCD ends up a being a little limiting for me - AllCity is the only place I know making smaller rings for 144, and only in colours.

I'll definitely be looking to get one of these for my derailleur bike when they arrive though

I love these, as I love my old TA's. It is good to have the practical improvements as well. However, I think these cranks would be even more attractive with 42/26 rings, now that a 11-28 would be the most obvious Shimano cassette to partner them with. It would take them where no other modern crank can go, and in the real world a 26-28 is far more relevant than a 46-11.

On these cranks 26 is the smallest possible. Anything smaller would have had to be a double crank with a 110/74 mm bcd. In many respects that would have been a more practical approach (plenty of rings), but let us be grateful for what we have been given.As for the larger of the two rings, I am not sure how small this can be without getting into trouble with the front derailleur. This cannot be lowered at will without hitting the chainstay.Willem

Beautiful! What a great contribution to the market, and your thoughtful development process was a pleasure to watch.

Let me say how impressed I am that you are able to offer these in three separate sizes. Has been interesting to read all the comments asking for 172.5 but I suspect this thread ends up vastly over-estimating both 1) how many people can't need 172.5 and 2)how much difference 2.5mm makes.

Looking closely at the photo it looks like you've widened the space between arm and ring to accommodate current design front deraileurs. Smart. My front ders are old school but useful to others.

In the thread spirit of "please guess how I want it made and make it exactly like I want it" I would have prefered a larger outer chainring. I'm running 50/30 on a couple TAs and it's perfect for me. I have use for a 50x13 for part of every ride (spinning) and don't like or approve of cogs smaller than 13 ;-) But that's just me. 46/30 sounds like it works for most people and would probably be a good dirt road combo for me. Plus there's likely to ve a VO 50t eventually.

I wonder if there are any experiences to report yet. I wondered about FD compatibility, and possible chainstay clearance issues.Finally, I wondered if there is any news yet about other rings sizes, and a 42-26 combination in particular.

I just put one of these on my Boulder Bicycle, and I like it a lot. It did require a 122mm BB to clear the fixed flange on the cartridge. The front derailleur is also bit of an issue. When I'm on the 46, running any rear cogs larger than 23t makes the chain hit the top of the derailleur cage--a definite disadvantage on a 14-29 cassette! I'm using an IRD compact right now; I'll swap it out for a FSA Gossamer in the next week or so and report back.

I checked the chainline, and it is fine with a 122mm BB. Just out of curiosity, I fiddled with the IRD derailleur today to see how high it would have to be to not rub when on the 29t rear, and the outer cage stood 8mm proud of the teeth on the big ring. That's a lot. It still shifted, but not nearly as well as when I had it set at 3mm. This'll take some experimenting.